Trophy hunting is not sustainable


Trophy hunting is not sustainable

19 September 2019
The arguments for trophy hunting contained within a recent letter published in the journal Science simply don't stack up.

The letter's authors present arguments which, to their collective mind, offer a compelling scientific case for trophy hunting, even if they find it repugnant. 

Persistent caveats

The letter aims to bolster its ostensible scientific strength through a supplementary list of 128 signatories.  The inclusion of these 128 signatories constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. It is indicative of a strange but prevalent view that simply because a scientist makes a statement, that statement is somehow imbued with scientific rigour.

But a statement in speculation remains a statement in speculation regardless of whether it is made by a scientist.